Maurice Mitchell v. Doug Dretke

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-08-00139-CV

Maurice Mitchell,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

Doug Dretke, et al.,

                                                                                    Appellees

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23,349

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

            Maurice Mitchell brings this appeal from an interlocutory order denying his motion for default judgment.  However, there is no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from such an order.  See Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007) (“Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides such jurisdiction.”).  Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court notified Mitchell that the appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction and may be dismissed if a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was not filed within twenty-one days.

            At the same time as notice was being sent to Mitchell, he filed a “Voluntary Dismissal of Appellant’s Interlocutory Notice of Appeal & The Appeal.”  And after the notice was sent, Mitchell filed “Appellant’s Request to Expedite a Ruling” on the dismissal motion.

            Mitchell’s pleadings do not state a basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction other than to dismiss the appeal.  Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

                                                                                                PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 28, 2008

[CV06]

pan>

      Justice Gray

      (Justice Gray dissenting)

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed November 1, 2001

Publish